Final Recommendations on the Future Electoral Arrangements for Amber Valley in Derbyshire
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE FUTURE ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR AMBER VALLEY IN DERBYSHIRE Report to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions November 1998 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND This report sets out the Commission’s final recommendations on the electoral arrangements for Amber Valley in Derbyshire. Members of the Commission are: Professor Malcolm Grant (Chairman) Helena Shovelton (Deputy Chairman) Peter Brokenshire Professor Michael Clarke Pamela Gordon Robin Gray Robert Hughes Barbara Stephens (Chief Executive) ©Crown Copyright 1998 Applications for reproduction should be made to: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office Copyright Unit The mapping in this report is reproduced from OS mapping by The Local Government Commission for England with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Licence Number: GD 03114G. This report is printed on recycled paper. ii LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND CONTENTS page LETTER TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE v SUMMARY vii 1 INTRODUCTION 1 2 CURRENT ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS 3 3 DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS 7 4 RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION 9 5 ANALYSIS AND FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS 11 6 NEXT STEPS 25 APPENDIX A Final Recommendations for Amber Valley in Derbyshire: Detailed Mapping 27 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND iii iv LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND Local Government Commission for England 24 November 1998 Dear Secretary of State On 2 December 1997 the Commission began a periodic electoral review of Amber Valley under the Local Government Act 1992. We published our draft recommendations in June 1998 and undertook a ten-week period of consultation. We have now prepared our final recommendations in the light of the consultation, and have confirmed our draft recommendations in full. This report sets out our final recommendations for changes to electoral arrangements in Amber Valley. We recommend that Amber Valley Borough Council should be served by 45 councillors representing 23 wards, and that changes should be made to ward boundaries in order to improve electoral equality, having regard to the statutory criteria. We recommend that the Council should continue to hold elections by thirds. We note that you have now set out in the White Paper Modern Local Government - In Touch with the People (Cm 4014, HMSO) legislative proposals for a number of changes to local authority electoral arrangements. However, until such time as that new legislation is in place we are obliged to conduct our work in accordance with current legislation, and to continue our current approach to periodic electoral reviews. I would like to thank members and officers of the Borough Council and other local people who have contributed to the review. Their co-operation and assistance have been very much appreciated by Commissioners and staff. Yours sincerely PROFESSOR MALCOLM GRANT Chairman LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND v vi LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND SUMMARY The Commission began a review of Amber Valley on 2 December 1997. We published our draft ● In all 23 wards, the number of electors per recommendations for electoral arrangements on 30 councillor would vary by no more than 10 June 1998, after which we undertook a ten-week per cent from the borough average initially. period of consultation. ● By 2002 the number of electors per councillor is forecast to vary by no more ● This report summarises the representations than 10 per cent from the average in all but we received during consultation on our draft one ward. recommendations, and offers our final recommendations to the Secretary of State. Recommendations are also made for changes to parish and town council electoral arrangements We found that the existing electoral arrangements which provide for: provide unequal representation of electors in Amber Valley because: ● revised warding arrangements for the parish of Crich; ● in 14 of the 25 wards, the number of electors represented by each councillor varies ● revised warding arrangements for the towns by more than 10 per cent from the average of Belper, Heanor & Loscoe and Ripley. for the borough, and four wards vary by more than 20 per cent from the average; ● by 2002 electoral equality is not expected to All further correspondence on these improve, with the number of electors per recommendations and the matters discussed councillor forecast to vary by more than 10 in this report should be addressed to the per cent from the average in 16 wards, and Secretary of State for the Environment, by more than 20 per cent in five wards. Transport and the Regions, who will not make an order implementing the Our main final recommendations for future Commission’s recommendations before 4 electoral arrangements (Figure 1 and paragraph January 1999: 82) are that: The Secretary of State ● Amber Valley Borough Council should be Department of the Environment, served by 45 councillors, two more than at Transport and the Regions present; Local Government Review Eland House ● there should be 23 wards, two less than at Bressenden Place present; London SW1E 5DU ● the boundaries of 14 of the existing wards should be modified, while 11 wards should retain their existing boundaries; ● elections should continue to take place by thirds. These recommendations seek to ensure that the number of electors represented by each borough councillor is as nearly as possible the same, having regard to local circumstances. LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND vii Figure 1: The Commission’s Final Recommendations: Summary Ward name Number of Constituent areas Map reference councillors 1 Aldercar 2 Unchanged (the parish of Aldercar Map 2 & Langley Mill) 2 Alfreton 3 Alfreton East ward; Alfreton West ward Map 2 3 Alport 1 Unchanged (the parishes of Alderwasley, Map 2 Ashleyhay, Dethick Lea & Holloway, Hazelwood, Idridgehay & Alton and Shottle & Postern) 4 Belper Central 2 Belper East ward (part); Belper North Map 2 and ward (part); Belper South ward (part) large map 5 Belper East 2 Belper East ward (part) Map 2 and large map 6 Belper North 2 Belper North ward (part); Belper Map 2 and South ward (part) large map 7 Belper South 2 Belper East ward (part); Belper Map 2 and South ward (part) large map 8 Codnor & 2 Codnor ward (the Codnor parish ward Map 2 and Waingroves of Codnor parish); Heanor & Loscoe large map ward (part – the Crosshill & East parish ward of Codnor parish); Ripley ward (part – the proposed Waingroves parish ward of Ripley parish) 9 Crich 1 Unchanged (the Crich parish ward Map 2 of Crich parish) 10 Duffield 2 Unchanged (the parish of Duffield) Map 2 11 Heage & Ambergate 2 Unchanged (the Heage and Ambergate Map 2 and parish wards of Ripley parish) large map 12 Heanor East 2 Heanor East ward (part) Map 2 and large map 13 Heanor West 2 Heanor East ward (part); Heanor Map 2 and West ward (part) large map 14 Horsley & 2 Denby & Horsley Woodhouse ward Map 2 Shipley Park (part – the parish of Horsley Woodhouse); Holbrook & Horsley ward (part – the parish of Horsley); Shipley Park ward (the parishes of Mapperley, Smalley and Shipley) viii LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND Figure 1 (continued): The Commission’s Final Recommendations: Summary Ward name Number of Constituent areas Map reference councillors 15 Kilburn, 3 Denby & Horsley Woodhouse ward Map 2 Denby & Holbrook (part – the parish of Denby); Holbrook & Horsley ward (part – the parish of Holbrook); Kilburn ward (the parish of Kilburn) 16 Loscoe 2 Heanor & Loscoe ward (part – the Map 2 and Heanor & Loscoe parish ward of large map Heanor & Loscoe parish); Heanor West ward (part) 17 Riddings 2 Unchanged (the parish of Ironville Map 2 and the unparished area of Riddings) 18 Ripley 3 Ripley ward (part – the North and Map 2 and Butterley parish wards of Ripley parish large map and the East parish ward of Ripley parish as amended) 19 Ripley & Marehay 2 Unchanged (the Central, Elms and Map 2 and Marehay parish wards of Ripley parish) large map 20 Somercotes 2 Unchanged (the parish of Somercotes) Map 2 21 South West Parishes 1 Unchanged (the parishes of Kedleston, Map 2 Kirk Langley, Mackworth, Quarndon, Ravensdale Park, Turnditch, Weston Underwood and Windley) 22 Swanwick 2 Unchanged (the parish of Swanwick) Map 2 23 Wingfield 1 Unchanged (the parishes of Pentrich Map 2 and South Wingfield and the Fritchley parish ward of Crich parish) Note: Map 2 and the large map inserted at the back of this report illustrate the proposed wards outlined above. LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND ix x LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 1. INTRODUCTION 1 This report contains our final recommendations 5 Stage Three began on 30 June 1998 with the on the electoral arrangements for the borough of publication of our report, Draft Recommendations Amber Valley in Derbyshire. We have now on the Future Electoral Arrangements for Amber reviewed all the districts in Derbyshire as part of Valley in Derbyshire, and ended on 7 September our programme of periodic electoral reviews of all 1998. Comments were sought on our preliminary principal local authority areas in England. conclusions. Finally, during Stage Four we reconsidered our draft recommendations in the 2 In undertaking these reviews, we have had light of the Stage Three consultation and now regard to: publish our final recommendations. ● the statutory criteria contained in section 13(5) of the Local Government Act 1992; ● the Rules to be Observed in Considering Electoral Arrangements contained in Schedule 11 to the Local Government Act 1972. 3 We have also had regard to our Guidance and Procedural Advice for Local Authorities and Other Interested Parties (published in March 1996, supplemented in September 1996 and updated in March 1998), which sets out our approach to the reviews. 4 This review was in four stages.